Saturday, December 4, 2010

Article Tools

A quiet struggle over the future of small but important patches of California’s coastal ocean will surge into the open on December 15 in Santa Barbara’s Hotel Mar Monte. That is when the California Fish and Game Commission has scheduled a final vote on a plan to reconfigure the network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) within the state’s southern territorial waters, including possible new zones off Goleta and Gaviota.

Vic Cox

Fish and Game has already accomplished similar regulatory overhauls in two of its five coastal “study regions.” However, the South Coast Region, more commonly known as the Southern California Bight, is the biggest fish in the group. It encompasses 2,350 square miles of state coastal waters from Point Conception to the Mexican border. Seventeen million people live within 50 miles of this shoreline. At present, 42 MPAs of different types—adding up to slightly less than 182 square miles, or 7.7 percent of the total area—dot the zone.

Those who recognize the value of a healthy ocean and coast—from the recreational and commercial fisher folks to the divers, surfers, boaters and whalewatchers—must wonder why such a large region has such low numbers. But it gets worse: After subtracting the 13 federal-state MPAs surrounding the northern Channel Islands the amount currently protected shrinks to 14 square miles.

As ocean habitats with little or no legal biological or mineral extraction MPAs are life rafts for sea plants and animals, a place where they find relief from disruptive human activities. Some are called marine parks, reserves, or conservation areas; all are geographical entities with varying standards of protection or conservation.

Such details are the stuff of which even ecosystem paladins can, and often do, disagree. What many, but not all, agree on is that storm warnings are rising over the deteriorating quality of California’s marine habitats.

Symptoms such as declining recreational and commercial fish harvests, ineffectual protected areas, and diminishing ecosystem diversity prompted the state Legislature to seek to reverse such trends in 1999 with the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). One of the law’s primary goals is to reorganize existing MPAs into a coherent network, and Fish and Game was charged with taking the lead.

The commission’s decision this month on how best to protect South Coast Region habitats will be based on proposals from groups of stakeholders and the MLPA staff; public comment will be accepted before and during the meeting.

Dana Roeber Murray

Lingcod on Naples Reef.

Counting a compromise plan, termed the “Integrated Preferred Alternative” or IPA, four competing proposals have emerged for the region. (See the details in the Draft Environmental Impact Report.) Goletans and other Santa Barbara County residents have a direct interest in which proposal is chosen. All plans but one call for new MPAs to be created off the Goleta and Gaviota shorelines, including at Point Conception and Naples Reef. The Goleta Slough conservation area could also expand.

Under these alternatives the region’s existing 42 MPAs could expand to 50 or contract to 37, but square mileage should at least double: Including the Channel Islands MPA network’s 168 square miles, total protected miles could grow to between 341.5 and 361, depending on the specific proposal. However, not all MPAs are created equal and, as usual, difficulties hide among the details.

Marine researchers, for example, have repeatedly documented the biological productivity of Naples Reef, not far from the City of Goleta’s western boundary. UCSB and UC Davis scientists reportedly told stakeholders that Naples’s 2.5-square-mile area produced as much biomass (the aggregate of all living things) as that of the proposed new MPA at Point Conception, which would be nine times greater in size. This hints at why the reef ‘s future status is disputed.

David Bacon, a recreational fishing boat skipper, thinks he is going to lose one of his prime destinations if Naples Reef becomes an MPA. “I’m a strong conservationist,” he says, “but MPAs are a grab by preservationists who want to shut down the most productive areas.” Traditional fisheries management methods, such as seasons, size and bag limits, are enough protection without creating no-take zones, he argues.

“MPAs bring the concept of the national park system to the oceans,” counters Greg Helms of the Ocean Conservancy and a veteran of the stakeholder skirmishes. Scientific research shows the approach is beneficial to wildlife and recreational users, he says, adding: “This is a crucial hearing. While the IPA looks similar to the proven Channel Islands MPA network, the commission has the authority to go larger or smaller.”

Comments

I used to fish commercially for sheephead in the summer.That is when the water is warmer and I can catch them.They changed the system to 2 month quotas for the fish.Since I can't catch them most of the year...It became unprofitable to fish part time so I quit. Now they use the reduced fish landings ...as a reason for 'no take' zones.There are not less fish...there are less fishermen...

While the culture of fishing is exterminated through heavy handed, needles, utopist laws like the MLPA, Aquarium backed NGO community that slid the law through ten years ago (was NOT put to the people for a vote) enjoy channeling tens of millions of our tax dollars to their pet projects such as "monitoring the closures" ITS ABOUT THE MONEY and little else. There are many downsides to the MPA's, namely the fact that they may compact fishermen into ever smaller areas and cause overfishing, draw in huge amounts of marine mammals to create feeding stations, hence reduce the biodiversity and they will cost $40-60 million per year to enforce and monitor. The MPA's denote the single largest retraction of human freedom since the Indian reservations- The California constitution strictly prohibits actions like the MPA- The MPA folks have systematically cherry picked all the most productive, calm protected spots where the young learn to dive and fish hence breaking the back of the fishing culture. When fishermen are marginalized, drug addiction, domestic violence and suicide is never far behind- I implore the eco community to save itself and avoid a global backlash by learning that human freedom does not have to be a casualty of their agendas- they should do projects that unite the ocean community and bring more life to the sea, projects like a massive artificial reef system would have been a great alternative to the MPAs. The final MPA meeting is near UCSB where its greatest advocates exits (coincidence that an MPA is directly in from of the UCSB marine science center?), the meetings are in the middle of the week and during the holiday season- The scheduling is one final manipulation to favor NGOs, Aquariums and Universities profit from the MPAs- they get paid to attend these meeting while the fishermen are out working- I was an early pioneer in the sustainable seafood movement, when I saw how, misguided much of the environmental community actually is, I decided to dedicate myself to disseminating the truth- The MPA folks have suppressed a proper public debate and lied to the public when telling them that the California ocean is sick and dying - I am sure scare tactics are effective- but the CA ocean is healthier than I have seen it in my extensive 30 year diving and fishing career- nothing good can come from a lie and the ends never justify the means.Consider how much power and money worldwide has now been handed over to the eco movement- in some cases, such as the UN’s Unesco-program, countries have given up sovereignty to a foreign power-the UN- and for strictly environmental purposes- Never has so much power been consolidated into so few hands and as the past is the best indicator of the future, such power, even if it appears well intended in the beginning never goes un- The large eco movement has become the authority and ruling entity –the new elite in a system of Environmental Apartheid and I say it is time to QUESTION AUTHORITY!

PS- if there are any red blooded Americans left who care about freedom and justice, please come to the final MPA meeting- Hotel Mar Monte- Dec 15th and 16th 10:00 AM

FYI: the MPA folks bus in loads on inner city school kids whom they have co-opted that sign up for speaking time then cede it to the pro MPA folks- it is a dirty Saul Alinksy tactic-so we need as many freedom loving warm bodies as possible to make a stand-please join us- your future depends on it.

Ok first of all the meeting begins at 9:00am with the MLPA item the first item. So you can ignore the whole post of the person with that error. Second, really now, setting aside about one reef out of five along California's coast for conservation and non-consumptive recreation -- that's "cultural extermination? I'd say that's either outrageous demagoguery or someone has some serious problems keeping things in perspective. Right now we have vastly less protected area in the sea compared with what we've chosen -- rightly so -- to set aside on land. Think about that. Where else can whatever anyone wants to do -- including taking natural resources away --go on in any location at all. Only the sea. MPAs change this. So that some of the fish and wildlife that belong to ALL us are available to us in their natural state. If you can support that, come on down to Mar Monte on Dec 15 and see history be made. I can promise you: you won't be bored and you won't feel like your participation didn't matter. Signed: just another fisher, diver and Californian who sees a place for us all in the ocean, and wants the laws to reflect that

Like so many other lies told in this debate, The MPA % have been tweaked to make it look like less than 10%- -for overall area, including blue water that is true- but when you factor in that most people fish in the sub-tidal rocky- they have taken 75% of the very best spots, by using info supplied by the fishermen themselves. The MPA's are a flag planted in the sand- they will grow and metastasize until human are forced in ever smaller areas-then folks will simply quit fishing (which I am sure in the final goal of the effort)

Even extreme environmentalist can see that so much power and money lumped in to one spot can only engender excessive corruption- the land model for parks does not apply to the sea-the dynamic is simply very different- you have all been suckered into thinking this is a god idea and the NGO's and Universities are laughing all the way to the bank. The fact remains that species management work fin on its ow while preserving freedom, these is no mechanical need for MPAs (they are 100% idealistic in nature and NOT a fisheries management tool) and freedom is far more precious that the agendas of a few megalomaniacs who only care about their legacy's and program funding.

The MPA's will be the start of a global backlash that has already begun in Australia-this is sad indeed as the environmental movement has a lot to offer, but their lack of love of freedom and human rights will be their undoing.

My advice to the control freaks who cannot seem to manage watching human be free is to learn to work with your back, go produce something, learn how to make payroll, pay taxes and pull the log out of your own eye before yanking the splinter out of everyone else’s- if you want change- try changing yourself first.

In a few years when the oppression is too much to bear under than hand of big green- I hope you recall this discussion.

Nature tends to itself- any man who claims they can design and blue print nature has a deity complex and they are always, always wrong in the end.

The hysteria and misinformation being expressed by the comments above is truly unfortunate. However, the commenter did make one correct statement: MPAs are not a fisheries management tool. MPAs are an ECOSYSTEM management tool focused on protecting all of the components of the ocean ecosystem from urchin, lobster, and sheephead to kelp forests, submarine canyons and rocky reefs. The goal is to safeguard all of the pieces of the system, not just one species at a time, as we are doing now with current fisheries management. Fisheries management has a role in protecting our marine resources; however, it is riddled with uncertainty and can lead to significant population crashes (as we saw with our groundfish fishery 10 years ago).

And it must be said that the "preferred alternative" being considered by the Fish and Game Commission on December 15th does not "take away" 75% of the best spots along the South Coast. In fact, of the 11% of the coastline protected in no-take marine reserves, only 11% of all shallow rocky reef and 9% all of kelp forest habitat in the entire South Coast is captured for protection. In other words, approximately 90% of the shallow reefs and kelp habitat in southern California remains open to fishing under the preferred plan.

It's time for us to shift our focus of ocean management from short-term benefits to long-term sustainability. The ocean is a public resource and belongs to all of us. For those of you that want to see fish AND fishing continue into the future, please come to the meeting on December 15 and speak out in support of MPAs in southern California.

Nature does tend to itself. That is the core concept behind marine protected areas... let some areas alone to recover and, evidence shows, healing happens. To the benefit of surrounding areas as well as the protected area. Good point.

Traditional fisheries management needs help. Just look at the first post about sheephead. What happened there my friend is that government set up a new fishery on them and their nearshore cousins, and they got beat up. Serious, sudden decline. So recreational fishermen like you demanded a plan and a reduction in effort there, and you guys then turn that into a anti-MPA talking point. Really.

This argument that really its a heavy fraction of fishing area proposed for MPAs is the worst lie. Here in SB ... just as an example, we can go thru the list of hotspots.... everyway you slice it, its 20% or one spot out of five. Naples - tiny protected area proposed. Open: Tajiguas, ellwood rocks, Refugio, St Augustine, one mile, mohawk/mesa, Carpinteria reef.

Meanwhile...freedom? The call to just go with fishery managment while asking for freedom is bogus on its face. Is there no room for the public to access their resources in a few places free of commercial and recreational fishing pressure? For the majority who appreciate and want to experience our heritage without taking ... in a couple places? Yes, the history is that the ocean is completely allocated to those who take. It is a major change to cut the public into the deal through MPAs, and certainly a bummer who had such an exclusive deal for so long. But the results have been so bad for so long that even fishing is suffering.

Every nursery school kid learns core values early. You speak of freedom and culture. Here's one you forgot: sharing.

Conservatives used to also be conservationists. Perhaps many of today's "Conservatives" aren't in fact at all nothing more than self-serving, narrow minded fools willing to destroy the planet we all share.

If the actions of the MPA folks were so altruistic, they would work for free- they do not value Freedom and they are drunk on power--

If the marine mammal population thrives inside the MPA's and reduces fish populations- what pithy retort will you have then- let me guess "it's the natural order if things" Plese save your slug lines for the blue shirt inner city high school kids that I am sure you will be busing into the meeting- kids who have never even been in the ocean. If cramming fishermen into smaller areas creates compaction and overfishing (like it did with the abalone), what will you say then? Let me guess, you will ask DFG to close effected fisheries as a result- it does not take a genius to see where this is headed-nobody has an issue with a few fish museums off our coast- what thinking people should fear is the unelected power structure that has taken over our DFG and trampled on our constitutional rights- in time you will see what I am saying to be true-I do not expect you to get it right now. The MPAs are the end of the last vestige of wild west and the death of the free fishing culture which will cause a great deal of harm to many many people. Have you even asked yourself if such a drastic expansion of government is a good thing? Have you asked yourselves if a bitterly divided ocean community is a good thing? Have you ask yourselves where th $40 million per year will come from to enforce it will come from? Have you even considered artificial reefs ashahppy alternative to all of this?

Long live a free ocean!

Oh- BTY- there are many places you can already dive and fish that do not have fishing pressure- you just need to get off your butt and go find them.

If you grew up or live in Paradise Cove mobile home park in Mailbu, you would know that the MPA's there is 100% impact on the locals- many locals are young and cannot go to the less productive open areas several miles away- to the north there is only sand and to the south there is only Latigo which has weak reef structure at best- the MPA people bull dozed over the easily marginalized trailer people like a nuclear blast and have made no apologies for disrupting and in some cases ruining the lives of over 1100 people who call the park home-many of whom moved there to have access to the nearby fishing (some rely on it for sustenance)- not a single pro MPA person I have met has even bothered to visit Paradise Cove and they know nothing of the socio damage they are causing- I am sure even if they did, their sociopathic, overly righteous mindset would prohibit them from acknowledging that they just may have gone too far. The Latino community who rely of fish for affordable health food have all but been excluded from this debate-I wonder what La Opnion will have to say when they come to the meeting? -Viva El Mar Libre!

Whats wrong- you guys afraid of a little public discourse?? Like so so many non realty based positions, your arguments don't hold up-face it -you are trying to create a utopia at the cost of freedom, massive tax dollar waste and huge expansion of government-for this reason you hide from debates and public exposure-

The truth is that a massive artificial reef system as an alternatiive to MPA’s would preserve freedom, avoid the cost and hastle of enfrocement, unite th ocean community and still allow you to blow your $20 million tax dollars of "monitoring" the reefs

Ecosystem based managened is a made up buzz words that has very little actual meaning as was it really means is non human based management- as man has been part of the ocean ecosystem in CA for 10,000 years- to remove man from the program simply dies not make any sense.

Doc Rickkets would be utterly ashamed at the marine science community for thier actions, power mongering and demonizaion of the fishing community-I wonder what his kids think about all this?

Looks like the conversation moved over to Yvon Chouinard's piece ffool. I think it would be wise for you to help the young spearos on here with some of your experience in finding those spots you talk about that have no fishing pressure. What the pro mpa folks are asking for -- what they have a right to -- is a couple reefs that have some semblance of what their fathers and grandfathers saw. Especially if you're worried that one reef out of five being set aside for appreciation, science, posterity will have those effects you predict.

Are you willing to designate those artificial reefs to preservation? If not, they'll add more habitat for more smaller, picked over fish and not give us what we know we can and should have and see at the mpas on the islands.

What is it about the ocean that's so different than anywhere else. Want to build a factory? Can't put in in a residential area, there's a place for that. Want to hunt a bear? get a permit and hunt in a place open for that. Not in the ocean, you can fish anywhere there's fish. That's dumb. You don't seem to get that your pastime and non consumptive people's pastimes don't always mix so well, the second group wants at least a few areas where the fish aren't reduced. That's what's on the table. Many of em allow pelagic spearfishing too. If yall continue to be that unreasonable, you might never learn to count to three and serve your true interests. That's a shame. Spearfishing is great and I intend to have a good time doing it alongside the MPAs. At Latigo and the open section of BKR too, when the current isnt ripping.

PS. Know why no one answers your claims that the science is "bad" or the process is corrupt? Cause you aren't fooling anyone and you're damaging your own case. You'll learn that this is a community that knows what's what and believes real university science more than special interest science. And they get that people who wouldn't play fair and trade in cheap-shots always call the process corrupt.